The Colorado Supreme Court ruled on Monday that defense attorneys seeking access to withheld information about a former DNA scientist’s misconduct must pursue the data in Jefferson County, where the Colorado Bureau of Investigation is located.

Yvonne “Missy” Woods stands accused of intentionally deleting data, manipulating procedures and compromising criminal evidence in her role as a former CBI employee. She faces 102 felony counts alleging systemic misconduct and is awaiting trial.

So far, CBI acknowledged finding problems in nearly one in 10 of the more than 10,780 cases she worked during her 29-year career at the lab. A Boulder County judge vacated a man’s murder conviction earlier this year based on now-unreliable DNA evidence handled by Woods.

However, the Office of the State Public Defender attempted last summer to seek records about all cases in which Woods was the DNA analyst, the technical reviewer or a courtroom witness. In response, the CBI withheld large swaths of information.

At the same time, Douglas County prosecutors were pursuing a case against Adetayo Sotade alleging sexual assault and other crimes. The defense listed Woods as one of its witnesses, as she was the technical reviewer for DNA testing in Sotade’s case.

After CBI largely denied the public defender’s request for Woods-related data, Sotade’s attorney then filed an application through his criminal case for CBI to explain in court why it was allowed to withhold the details pursuant to the Colorado Criminal Justice Records Act.

CBI, which is located in Lakewood, argued a Douglas County judge had no authority to hear the motion. The criminal justice records law requires such requests to be filed in the jurisdiction “wherein the record is found.” For CBI, that meant Jeffco.

In December, Douglas County District Court Judge Victoria Klingensmith sided with Sotade’s attorney and ordered the CBI to explain why it need not release the entirety of the records.

The bureau quickly appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Colorado Criminal Justice Records Act “provides predictability to criminal justice agencies and prevents their records custodians from being forced to travel across the state and expend limited public resources responding to show cause hearings in any civil or criminal proceeding where a party also seeks records through the CCJRA,” argued Assistant Attorney General Kelley M. Dziedzic.

Klingensmith and Sotade’s attorneys responded that challenging a records denial in the location of the records is one way, but not the only way, to move forward. The Colorado Attorney General’s Office argued it would be more efficient for a judge familiar with a defendant’s criminal case to also handle the records-related litigation.

“Mr. Sotade could be forced to go to trial without having access to records that he might be entitled to under the CCJRA. Then, after a verdict, if the Jefferson County District Court grants Mr. Sotade access to the records, Mr. Sotade could be in possession of potentially exculpatory evidence after the resolution of his criminal case,” the office wrote on behalf of Klingensmith.

The Supreme Court disagreed, finding the law clearly required the public defender’s office to litigate the denial of records in Jeffco, not through an individual defendant’s criminal case.

Given the “statewide impacts of Woods’s misconduct on past and pending criminal cases, the CBI could potentially be forced to attend show-cause hearings in any number of Colorado jurisdictions to defend the custodian’s denial of the CCJRA request,” wrote Justice Melissa Hart in the June 9 opinion. “It is far more practical and consistent with the statute that a show-cause hearing be held in Jefferson County, where the records are located.”

Defense attorney Mary Claire Mulligan, who is working on cases for defendants affected by Woods’ actions, said the court’s interpretation of the law will have relatively little legal impact beyond requiring lawyers to file separate cases in Jeffco to access CBI data. The larger problem, she said, is the government’s lack of transparency about Woods’ work in the first place.

“Everyone with one of these cases is trying to get access to the information. Which brings us back to why CBI won’t just turn over what appears to be obviously disclosable information,” she said. “And why the AG’s office decided to file a (petition with the Supreme Court) to keep this information from the clients whom it directly affects.”

The public defender’s office did not respond to questions about the decision and the attorney general’s office declined to comment.

The case is People v. Sotade.

Reporter Jenny Deam contributed to this article.